memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha talk:Content policy FAQ/Canon policy archive
Official Paramount books So, do we include those books considered "official" by Paramount, e.g. the reference books series published by Pocket Books? If we're already using the Encyclopedia and Chronology as sources, what makes them that different from Star Charts, other than that Star Charts has a relatively greater speculation-to-canon ratio? -- MinutiaeMan 08:05, 7 Jan 2004 (PST) :I think there's a fundamental difference between the two - the Encyclopedia and the Chronology directly reference the canon, they collate it in a way, whereas the Star Charts and the Tech Manuals expand on the canon in further specific (but non-canon) detail. In the second type, you won't find mention of the episodes in which certain things were discovered or referenced, because they're set 'in' the Trek universe, whereas the first type is a 'Trek is a TV series' reference. -- DarkHorizon 16:56, 7 Jan 2004 (PST) :I agree that the distinction is a bit vague. Generally, the Encyclopedia and Chronology don't invent new stuff, while the books like the Charts and Starship Spotter are filled with conjecture and non-confirmed data. Another point is that the Ency, Chrono and Tech Manuals were written by the people that make the show. Furthermore, these books were presumably used by writers themselves. There are a few borderline cases, most notably Franz Joseph's Tech Manual, which was considered canon for the first movies, but later became completely non-canon. -- Harry 09:18, 8 Jan 2004 (PST) ::This is, in my opinion, only partially correct. It's true that the Encyclopedia and the Chronology are first and foremost reference works, but even those two did invent some facts, for example exact dates from vague quotes such as "fifty years ago", or some of Starfleets registry numbers. This probably makes them better references than other works, but we still should be aware of this fact... -- Cid Highwind 10:09, 8 Jan 2004 (PST) :A reason NOT to use the Star Charts, for example, is the fact that some of its info has already been contradicted. It is a good book, no doubt about that, but if it (or another book) is included as a valid source, it should at least be mandatory to identify the used information as "conjecture". Generally, I don't know if this is worth the trouble at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 10:37, 8 Jan 2004 (PST) :Any final answer yet? See also Talk:Star Trek Star Charts, it would be nice to have one soon... -- Cid Highwind 07:50, 22 Jan 2004 (PST) Fan series (both film and audio series) So, do we include those fan-produced film and audio series, e.g. fanfilms or fanseries here? (See: Fan series) Does Memory Alpha include both canon or non-canon mainly? :Definitely NOT. We aim to include all canon information, and non-canon only finds its way in when it's useful background information. As on current, I believe our "apocrypha" is all the novels/manuals. Since fanfilms/fanseries are completely made by fans, and have nothing to do with production, we are definitely not going to include them. - AJHalliwell 11:38, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC) Evolution of this page? I'm curious about this page, because the part about canonicity says until Memory Alpha develops a larger article base as a reference source. Is this something that will ever happen? 14200 canon articles seems like it's pretty large (if the canon policy ever plans to change, that is). Weyoun 01:56, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC) :I've made some lengths to define "standard operating procedure" (as i have used it, and how others have been observed by me) on how we cite things from "iffy" canon resources. -- Captain M.K.B. 07:53, 7 April 2006 (PDT)